Visa resultat

Physical Computing, DAT125

1. Please evaluate lectures in general

1 (very low)»		0		0%
2 (low)»		7		43%
3 (average)»		5		31%
4 (good)»		1		6%
5 (very good)»		3		18%
Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3

- In my opinion as a student with engineering background there was too much focus on the design and creative part of the discipline, rather than on the technologies and devices used throughout the course. The good part was that seeing many phycomp projects gave me a concrete idea of what the discipline is about.» (2 (low))
- Most lectures just listed and showed a lot of projects other ppl have done. It would have been very very useful to have some kind of introduction to electronics, soldering quality, etc, etc.» (2 (low))
- Not very interesting content. It felt as though the lectures was just another place and time to showcase some stuff that people have done in the physical computing field. I would have appreciated more depth and analysis.» (2 (low))
- Good: Links about where to find information was given Bad: Most of the projects showed in the lectures were arty stuf without practical usage and some just useless. It would have been more intresting if some with practicl usage was considered too. » (2 (low))
- The rooms where the lectures was located was way too small and it got very warm in the room which makes people tired. » (2 (low))
- Too basic content, based on my previous background (3 years bachelor so nothing special)» (2 (low))
- More relvant lectures towards what we do in the labs» (3 (average))
- For many of us have no ideas when we first contact with some components and circuit, although we read material book, there need more interpretation.» (3 (average))
- having resource is good, but it is better to have more lecture.» (3 (average))
- Overall, the course could benefit from having less examples, more detailed perhaps.» (4 (good))
- Great course structure, smart choice of using a blog for home assignments, » (5 (very good))

2. Lab 1: Please evaluate quality of the lab of course week 1*

16 svarande

1 (very low)»		3		18%
2 (low)»		2		12%
3 (average)»		8		50%
4 (good)»		3		18%
5 (very good)»		0		0%
Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 2.68 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- Too difficult, given it"s intended for beginners also. the first exercise should have been second (after we learn how to solder and layout, and after a smaller example on breadboard)» (1 (very low))
- WAY to advanced taking into account the general electronics skill level. No decent soldering course AT ALL, no general electronics introduction etc, etc.» (1 (very low))
- Most student don"t have background, but made soldering and operate an IC in just first course.» (1 (very low))
- Since I already had the knowlige about this it didn"t give anything to me. But I can understand it"s good if you have another background.» (2 (low))
- it seemed too complicated for a first lab assignment» (3 (average))
- Good: hands on approach on soldering and physically building of circuits. Bad: probably a little bit too much complex for a first lab.» (3 (average))
- For me who know how to solder it was kind of wast of time, but i understand the need of teaching such skills to the participants in the cource. Improvement: Setting up a more advanced alternative for the people who already know » (3 (average))
- I missed the first of the two days that covered lab 1. But it was alright.» (4 (good))

3. Lab 2: Please evaluate quality of the lab of course week 2*

16 svarande

1 (very low)»		1		6%
2 (low)»		3		18%
3 (average)»		6		37%
4 (good)»		3		18%
5 (very good)»		3		18%
Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.25 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- This lab was very unorganized and unsttructured. It felt like it was 2 labs in 1. The lab assistant couldn"t help us with any of our questions. In the end not even Lalya could help us so we had to go home since we couldnt continue.» (1 (very low))
- Way to much different tasks that had to be done. Half of them would be adaquite. Also it would be nice if we didn"t need to wait half the lab time for an answer on an explanation of a part of the exercise. Which was needed to move on to the next.» (2 (low))
- There were to much to do, we didn"t have time to reflect on what we were doing!» (2 (low))
- Good base idea, but WAY to many mini-tasks we had to show Lalya. Takes to much time. Much better to just show the 2-3 of the most advanced circuits and do the other tasks internally in the group.» (3 (average))
- Good: Since Arduino is a high-level platform it"s quite easy to build even rather complex applications in little time. Bad: Exercises were too many for the time we had at our disposal for the lab, there wasn"t even time to try to understand all the different stuff or to explain it to students with different backgrounds. » (4 (good))
- Good» (4 (good))
- Now it got interesting, but very stressful to make everything work. Also quite bad that not all components were available.» (4 (good))
- simple enough with clear instructions It was even easier than LAB1 and that is what surprised me» (5 (very good))
- good chose of microcontroler, and verý good instructions for the asignments. I think its a good way of working, copying the code and then changing it to your own needs, when needed.» (5 (very good))

4. Lab 3: Please evaluate quality of the lab of course week 3*

16 svarande

1 (very low)»		1		6%
2 (low)»		1		6%
3 (average)»		6		37%
4 (good)»		6		37%
5 (very good)»		2		12%
Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.43 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- There were to much to do, we didn"t have time to reflect on what we were doing!» (1 (very low))
- See #3» (3 (average))
- having resource is good, but it is better to have more lectures about the theory behind them. And learn more about PD.» (3 (average))
- Same as Lab 2, but worse in the sense that here there was even less time to spend on a single exercise. This one felt really like we were in a hurry from start to finish.» (4 (good))
- This was a lot better lab then the one before. More structured and easier to follow the lab pm.» (4 (good))
- Stressful to make everything work. Also quite bad that not all components were available or functioned.» (4 (good))
- same as above» (5 (very good))

5. Lab 4: Please evaluate quality of the lab of course week 4*

16 svarande

1 (very low)»		1		6%
2 (low)»		1		6%
3 (average)»		6		37%
4 (good)»		5		31%
5 (very good)»		3		18%
Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.5 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- There were to much to do, we didn"t have time to reflect on what we were doing!» (1 (very low))
- Didn"t really like the textiles, sewing in these materials wasn"t that great. Also the keypad that we had to do could easily be lowered to a 2x2 keypad to ease the sewing.» (2 (low))
- Maybe better textile material could help.» (3 (average))
- Pretty good, would have been good with more introduction of how to connect inductive threads to normal electronics etc.» (3 (average))
- It was good in such a way that it let everyone know what was out there to work with, but as it was so hard to get any thing to work i dont think anyone wants to use textiles in this way. (with an exceprion for the strech sensor wich worked quite well) » (3 (average))
- Great to see new concepts of materials and how they work.» (4 (good))
- it was so much fun» (5 (very good))
- I liked Lab 4 quite a lot, subject is relatively new and thus interesting. To improve i just recommend to get more kinds of different e-textiles to experiment on.» (5 (very good))

6. Lab 5: Please evaluate quality of the lab of course week 5 and 6*

16 svarande

1 (very low)»		0		0%
2 (low)»		0		0%
3 (average)»		4		25%
4 (good)»		6		37%
5 (very good)»		6		37%
Do not know»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 4.12 (bidrar till totalt genomsnitt/jämförelseindex)

- All instructions not availible in the beginning, no info on what was possible to order, unneccessarily long waiting time for components.» (3 (average))
- There were much to do, but we managed quite well.» (3 (average))
- Generally good, but allocated time is too little, especially because at least for my group the components we ordered took several days to arrive.» (4 (good))
- More time, to get components.» (4 (good))
- Nice to make a hole project in only 3 days.» (4 (good))
- good starting point for group projects to be prepared for the bigger UbiComp project» (5 (very good))
- Perfect! Letting everone utelize the groupmembers capabilitys to create something fun in three intenzive days. Bad things: problem with finding something to do, maybe more sugestions would help. » (5 (very good))

7. Plase evaluate the guest lecture by TAKURO MIZUTA LIPPIT

1 (very low)»		2		12%
2 (low)»		4		25%
3 (average)»		2		12%
4 (good)»		7		43%
5 (very good)»		1		6%
Not been there»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- Not very interesting to me, seemed pretty useless in a more general sense.» (1 (very low))
- was not meaningful and scientific» (2 (low))
- I didn"t really see any point to it. I was hoping to get a technical-ish lecture about musical interfaces, instead he mostly described the work of his collective (which i deem of very disputable interest), showed us a bunch of useless projects without even describing them, and basically did little more than self-promotion.» (2 (low))
- It gets low instead of vry low only because to highlight how bad i think dorkbot meetings were. Isnt there any good musicians out there that can really show some music instead of all this bullshit?» (2 (low))
- Out of topic for me!» (3 (average))
- Nice to hear what the field looks like from someone hwo works with it. How to make music instrument is also intresting and is somewath missing in the cource in the sense that the participants never constructs anything using midi or simmular.» (4 (good))

8. Plase evaluate Dorkbot-GBG #2, Friday 19th September 2008

1 (very low)»		5		31%
2 (low)»		6		37%
3 (average)»		2		12%
4 (good)»		1		6%
5 (very good)»		0		0%
Not been there»		2		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.43

- Bad. Bad. Bad. The first guy hacked commercial electronic instruments without any kind of knowledge about it, or either was just very very bad at explaining it. The second guy was kinda freaked out, and didn"t even seem to know why he was there. In general the event was too artsy for my tastes. In all honesty I believe that we were pratically coerced (or else extra homework!!) to attend the dorkbot events because one of the teachers is involved with the collective organizing them and thus we were basically used to make the events seem more successful than they actually were. As a matter of fact i think we students were actually the ONLY (and if not, for sure the most) people in there.» (1 (very low))
- Why make this mandatory? It"s fun to have extracurricular events for those interested, but I"m not sure if that many would"ve gone if they"d known what it was about. It"s one thing to be creative, it"s another entirely to do useful and entertaining stuff. I do not learn by listening to loud noise. Also, several students had a hard time finding the place since they were new in town.» (1 (very low))
- Worst thing ive ever attended. Those guys that we were listening to didnt get my attention at all. The first guy starts off, with a bad english, presentating his homepage which is a white background with light grey text. Arent we going on a design program? After showing some other crappy homepages from the mid 90"s he started to "show off" his things. Apperently it was done with circuit bending, what circuit bending acculy is we didnt have a clue about untill the end of his presentation. So what about his "things"? I dont understand how you even can call it music... The other presentations during the evening followed the same pattern.» (1 (very low))
- I don"t understand why this was mandatory? It should be recommended for those who are interested. When people claim that they play music when they make sounds by "hacking" a device, they should at least have some kind of a musical ability to play it! This was awful!» (1 (very low))
- For me it was just strange noise everything. Can"t say I understand the meaning of turning something that sounds good into something that sounds really bad.» (2 (low))
- Presentation was poor. Especially the first one. The music demonstration is not very convincing.» (2 (low))
- The cultural aspect is wery nice to inegrate with the cource but the people in dorkbot are not wat i call musicans, so, good intention but bafd performance...» (2 (low))
- Low quality projects and a shame that it was mandatory» (2 (low))
- Cool to learn how artist making circuit bending, but lack of meaning.(but meet the goal of physical computing, isn"t it?)» (3 (average))
- Should NOT be mandatory!» (Not been there)

9. Plase evaluate Dorkbot-GBG #3, Dorkbot-GBG #3, Saturday 11th October

1 (very low)»		4		25%
2 (low)»		3		18%
3 (average)»		6		37%
4 (good)»		2		12%
5 (very good)»		0		0%
Not been there»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- This should NOT be mandatory!!!» (1 (very low))
- Same as the first Dorkbot. Just as bad. Again, people had trouble finding it. And seriously, putting mandatory events on a Saturday night?» (1 (very low))
- Like the last dorkbot there were some projects presentated, this time the presentations was a bit better made but still not intressting to me. The music acts was still a big question mark in my ears. What was those bicycles all about? To make those meeting intressting to a bigger group of ppl like our class i think you need to get some more entertaining presentations. Something that acculy can play music, why make your own mixer boards that sounds crap instead of using those that could be bought in the local music store and plays nice music if combined with a great user?» (1 (very low))
- I don"t understand why this was mandatory? It should be recommended for those who are interested.» (1 (very low))
- Low quality projects and a shame that it was mandatory. A bit more interesting beacause of the festival.» (2 (low))
- A little better than dorkbot #2, the first presentation here was actually quite interesting (read: technical). But still, i don"t like things when they"re forced upon me.» (3 (average))
- better but the bicycle thing was kind of pointless... » (3 (average))
- Presentation was good, but lacked a significant musical example.» (4 (good))
Genomsnitt totalt för detta stycke: 3.4

Your own effort

10. How many hours per week did you spend on this course?

16 svarande

At most 15 hours/week»		3		18%
Around 20 hours/week»		5		31%
Around 25 hours/week»		3		18%
Around 30 hours/week»		4		25%
At least 35 hours/week»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.68

- The cource book is wery good but since i didnt need to read it i didnt read much...» (At most 15 hours/week)

11. How large part of the teaching offered did you attend?

16 svarande

0%»		0		0%
25%»		0		0%
50%»		1		6%
75%»		1		6%
100%»		14		87%

Genomsnitt: 4.81

- great lectures with orgonized content» (75%)
- Since it was mandatory!!! But it chouldn"t be» (100%)

Goals and goal fulfilment

12. How understandable are the course goals?

I have not seen/read the goals»		4		25%
The goals are difficult to understand»		0		0%
The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer»		10		62%
The goals clearly describe what I am supposed to learn»		2		12%

Genomsnitt: 2.62

- Why so many mandatory lectures, etc?» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- The "inteligent textiles" is a fuzzy word and could be clarified, i also got the impression that i would learn how to create music with the microcontroler » (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)
- need more theory...» (The goals give some guidance, but could be clearer)

13. Are the goals reasonable considering your background and the number of credits?

13 svarande

No, the goals are set too low»		2		15%
Yes, the goals seem reasonable»		9		69%
No, the goals are set too high»		2		15%

Genomsnitt: 2

- Because of my technical background I already had experience with microcontrollers, sensors, and actuators. Don"t really know how it would have been if i had seen those things for the first time in phycomp.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- Should be more programming, and less focus on design since it is a masters program for IT and Computer science students.» (No, the goals are set too low)
- Perhaps longer,slower course and higher goal?» (No, the goals are set too high)

14. Did the examination assess whether you have reached the goals?

No, not at all»		0		0%
To some extent»		6		42%
Yes, definitely»		1		7%
I don"t know/have not been examined yet»		7		50%

Genomsnitt: 3.07

- In my opinion: groupwork based exam = bad » (To some extent)
- » (To some extent)

Teaching and course administration

15. To what extent has the teaching been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		7		43%
Some extent»		5		31%
Large extent»		3		18%
Great extent»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 1.87

- No extent would actually be a more accurate description.» (Small extent)
- The teachings did not cover the skills necessary for the labs.» (Small extent)
- Ole was not very helpful and could not answer about 1 out of 5 questions.» (Small extent)
- I don"t think Ole answered more than 1 out of 10 of my questions. What is he really here for? During the first lecture in Ubiquitous Computing course he asked my friend what the litterature for this course are. Shouldn"t he if anyone be aware of this!?» (Some extent)
- All teacher"s had low tech-knowlidge but the design part of the course made it interesting for me» (Some extent)

16. To what extent has the the course literature and other material been of help for your learning?

Small extent»		4		25%
Some extent»		5		31%
Large extent»		6		37%
Great extent»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 2.25

- Completely useless course book» (Small extent)
- Haven"t opened the book since the first or second HA.» (Small extent)
- We learned by reading the lab pm:s» (Small extent)
- How about more stuff of prototyping? » (Some extent)
- Good book, but all the blog reading didn"t bring that much relevance» (Some extent)
- THe cource book is as i said good and the fact that a lot of sensor and actuators where present helped a lot» (Great extent)

17. How well did the course administration, web page, handouts etc work?

Very badly»		3		18%
Rather badly»		2		12%
Rather well»		7		43%
Very well»		4		25%

Genomsnitt: 2.75

- Messy, schedule and deadlines were constantly changing, home assignments sometimes weren"t notified.» (Very badly)
- Way to many handouts came way to late, last-minute changes in the schedule, home assignments from one day to another etc.» (Very badly)
- The HA was too late to come up on the homepage. That we had to turn in HA on paper isnt a great solution either. We are going on the IT univeristy of gothenburg right?» (Very badly)
- Make the material be online faster and ever before the lectures. After just one or two days one forget about what the lecture was about if thers no material to read.» (Rather well)

18. How was the studio organized, electronic equipment, compononets, overview?

Study climate

19. How were the opportunities for asking questions and getting help?

Very poor»		1		6%
Rather poor»		2		12%
Rather good»		8		50%
Very good»		5		31%
I did not seek help»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- Teachers did not seem to know the labs or the basic electronics behind it and could hence rarely help at all with the problems that occured.» (Very poor)
- The teachers lacked some of the skills and to many students in the lab.» (Rather poor)
- There were lots of students and not enough people to answer, so there was sometimes a waste of time to wait for an answer!» (Rather good)
- Lalya could answer most questions we were having. Ole couldn"t answer any more difficult questions then where to find a multimeter.» (Rather good)
- Ole is THE man.» (Very good)

20. How well has cooperation between you and your fellow students worked?

Very poorly»		0		0%
Rather poorly»		0		0%
Rather well»		7		43%
Very well»		9		56%
I did not seek cooperation»		0		0%

Genomsnitt: 3.56

- But i think you should be able to choose your collegues.» (Rather well)
- Hard to work at a hi level when many of us lack the language skills needed.» (Rather well)
- This is one of the good things of a lot of different backgrounds, people know different things and can help each other.. » (Very well)

21. How was the course workload?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		6%
Adequate»		8		50%
High»		5		31%
Too high»		2		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.5

- The labs were the hard part of the course. To get a high grade during lab exercises you had to keep a really high pace. We never had any breaks during labs. This stressfactor made it harder to take in all the information and to really learn it. Think it would be more successfull to remove some elements to increase the learning curve. Appart from the labs it was chill.» (Adequate)
- But you could get more out of the lab if there were more time to reflect on each lab» (Adequate)

22. How was the total workload this study period?

Too low»		0		0%
Low»		1		6%
Adequate»		8		50%
High»		6		37%
Too high»		1		6%

Genomsnitt: 3.43

- Primary because there was no examination.» (Adequate)
- the two courses we had cooperated in a good way» (High)

Summarizing questions

23. What is your general impression of the course?

Poor»		2		12%
Fair»		4		25%
Adequate»		3		18%
Good»		5		31%
Excellent»		2		12%

Genomsnitt: 3.06

- Covered topics are per se good and interesting, but imo there"s room for a lot of improvements in both practical organization and perspective of the teaching.» (Fair)
- The labs could have been better, but dorkbot was a disaster!!» (Fair)
- In contrast to all I complained about I will also say that I liked the idea, the intentions, of the course and in general it was interesting and fun.» (Good)
- I wich this was the first course i took when i started my chalomers studies. It teachjes everything in a very easy and hands-on way. Much because the ardruino is so easy to work with. » (Excellent)

24. What should definitely be preserved to next year?

25. What should definitely be changed to next year?

26. Additional comments

* obligatoriska frågor